Skip to main content
HairCited

Efficacy of Intralesional and Oral Dutasteride in the Treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia: A Systematic Review.

Maira Elizabeth Herz-Ruelas, Neri Alejandro Álvarez-Villalobos, Juan Manuel Millán-Alanís, Humberto de León-Gutiérrez, Sonia Sofía Ocampo-Garza et al.
Review Skin appendage disorders 2020 35 цитирований
PubMed DOI
<\/script>\n
`; }, get iframeSnippet() { const domain = 'haircited.com'; const params = 'pmid\u003D33313048'; return ``; }, get activeSnippet() { return this.method === 'script' ? this.scriptSnippet : this.iframeSnippet; }, copySnippet() { navigator.clipboard.writeText(this.activeSnippet).then(() => { this.copied = true; setTimeout(() => { this.copied = false; }, 2000); }); } }" @keydown.escape.window="open = false" @click.outside="open = false">

Embed This Widget

Style



      
      
    

Widget powered by . Free, no account required.

Study Design

Тип исследования
Systematic Review
Популяция
Androgenetic alopecia patients
Вмешательство
Efficacy of Intralesional and Oral Dutasteride in the Treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia: A Systematic Review. None
Препарат сравнения
None
Первичный исход
therapeutic efficacy of both treatment routes, including head-to-head treatme...
Направление эффекта
Negative
Риск систематической ошибки
Unclear

Abstract

Androgenetic alopecia is the most common cause of hair loss [Br J Dermatol. 2011 Jan;164(1):5-15]. Finasteride and minoxidil are the only approved treatments [J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Oct;59(4):547-8 and J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2018 Jan;32(1):11-22]. Dutasteride is more potent than finasteride due to its ability to inhibit both 5-α-reductase type I and II [Our Dermatol Online. 2017 Sep;9(1):75-9] though its adverse effects and long half-life contribute to the reluctance on its oral use. Mesotherapy could be a feasible alternative to avoid systemic exposure and side effects [J Pan-Arab League Dermatologist. 2009 Feb;20(1):137-45]. We aim to perform a systematic review to analyze scientific literature with the purpose of comparing efficacy and adverse effects of both administration routes. Five clinical trials using oral route and 3 intralesional in comparison with placebo met criteria for inclusion. Regarding intralesional dutasteride, only one study [Clin Dermatol. 2001 Mar;19(2):149-54] reported the mean change in hair count. Although both interventions favor over placebo, there are not enough data to reliably compare outcomes obtained between both routes. Mean increase in hair count observed with oral dutasteride was higher (MD: 15.92 hairs [95% CI: 9.87-21.96]; p = <0.00001; I 2 = 90%) compared to intralesional dutasteride in Abdallah's study (MD: 7.90 hairs [95% CI: 7.14-8.66]; p = <0.00001). Future studies are required to assess the therapeutic efficacy of both treatment routes, including head-to-head treatments before well-supported conclusions can be established.

Кратко

Although both interventions favor over placebo, there are not enough data to reliably compare outcomes obtained between both routes, and future studies are required to assess the therapeutic efficacy of both treatment routes, including head-to-head treatments before well-supported conclusions can be established.

Used In Evidence Reviews

Similar Papers